Japhrodisiac wrote:What amazes me most at this point is that they bring out several new bikes, all of which seem to have no geometry or engine placement options. If i were as lost as they are, wouldn't you build a test lab version with movable everything?

I agree, however with the L-engine being fairly long they have few options for engine placement. Now that the L seems to be titled backwards this shortens the engine and opens up some new engine placement options.

The engine rotation would allow for more placement options, which they have forgone in favour of a static balance measure - by my supposition. What they appear to have done is rotate it backwards without taking advantage of the ability to push it forwards as seen in David's pit lane photos (the radiator fully covers the front cylinder head). The first iteration of the new bike - the GP0 - had identical geometry to the carbon bike, which seems to have been more about Prezi proving to himself (and management) that he was 'not wrong' in pursuing the carbon path for so long. I don't think he was wrong either, the material itself is a blank canvas, but they do appear to have gotten the weight distribution mucked up very long ago, and this is the one thing that has never been adjustable. Remember that the carbon bike had the same geometry as the trellis framed bike, so we are talking about similar weight distribution issues since 200? . Without the ability to move the rider or engine, the 2 heaviest components, they resort to making massive compromises in setup ie shortening an already short wheelbase, raising ride height dramatically etc.

Hansd wrote:Now that the L seems to be titled backwards this shortens the engine and opens up some new engine placement options.

The engine is in no way shortened by rotation. It DOES however shorten the horizontal length within the frame, but the engine is exactly the same size as it was. The compromises are just different.

I think you are both right. The physical length of the engine is shorter, but you lose space at the top front and back. If you like, you go from being a long triangle to being a shorter square. The dimensions don't change, but the packaging differs.

Hansd wrote:1. You assume this is about weight distribution, but my point was this could be about other things, like mass centralisation and making the bike turn better.

I don't assume that. We have all read that Rossi/JB were complaining about the inablity to move weight (the engine specifically) forward due to the front cylinder radiator issue. Moving the engine forward AND moving the rear wheel forward seem to negate each other.

How does a longer swingarm reduce wheelying if the overall wheel base dimention remains the same? By pushing the centralized weight forward. So then, why keep chasing that weight forward with the rear wheel? Doesnt make sense, and that was the point of my question.

Moving the engine forward is not necessarily completely negated by moving the rear wheel forward. they may be after a shorter bike to aid weight transfer, turn in and change of direction. The engine may have moved 40mm forward and the rear wheel 20mm forward? We really have no data to go off but if they had done something like that ,then that would give them more weight over the front and the advantages of a shorter wheelbase. No?

a longer swingarm with the same wheelbase (and CoG) does make a bike that's harder to lift the front wheel. In english it is called the "squat effetct" I believe, it is the effect that the chain has on the bike, pulling on the rear wheel

remember the first R1 ? it was the first engine with the gearbox axes on top of each other. that way they could reduce the legth of the engine and make a longer swingarm. they needed it to keep the front wheel down .

JanBros wrote:a longer swingarm with the same wheelbase (and CoG) does make a bike that's harder to lift the front wheel. In english it is called the "squat effetct" I believe, it is the effect that the chain has on the bike, pulling on the rear wheel

remember the first R1 ? it was the first engine with the gearbox axes on top of each other. that way they could reduce the legth of the engine and make a longer swingarm. they needed it to keep the front wheel down .

The squat, or rise/mechanical traction is determined by swingarm angle, which determines the "chain pull moment", not the actual length of the arm. When the suspension is loaded in a corner, the angle of the swingarm determines whether the chain's pull on the sprocket will further load, or unload the rear suspension during acceleration. This does two things. It changes the fork angle relative to the ground, and, either pushes down on the front wheel, or tries to lift it. Not enough angle is bad, but so is too much. Criville use to run gobs and you could actually watch rear rise and force the front down. It was pretty cool looking.

The first R1s also had longer than normal fork sliders. The theory was that under acceleration the front tire would remain on the ground longer. Yamaha later realised they didnt work.

tom wrote:Moving the engine forward is not necessarily completely negated by moving the rear wheel forward. they may be after a shorter bike to aid weight transfer, turn in and change of direction. The engine may have moved 40mm forward and the rear wheel 20mm forward? We really have no data to go off but if they had done something like that ,then that would give them more weight over the front and the advantages of a shorter wheelbase. No?

Squidpuppet wrote:The squat, or rise/mechanical traction is determined by swingarm angle, which determines the "chain pull moment", not the actual length of the arm. When the suspension is loaded in a corner, the angle of the swingarm determines whether the chain's pull on the sprocket will further load, or unload the rear suspension during acceleration. This does two things. It changes the fork angle relative to the ground, and, either pushes down on the front wheel, or tries to lift it. Not enough angle is bad, but so is too much. Criville use to run gobs and you could actually watch rear rise and force the front down. It was pretty cool looking.

sticking in a longer swing arm does lot's of things :

- if you keep everything the same, it will raise the rear end of the bike because of the angle of the swing arm. to keep the ride height the same, you will have to make changes to the setup which will result in a different angle for the wing arm and thus a different squat effect.- draw a similar triangle like the bike : front sprocket, swing arm pivot and rear axle. now move the rear axle (and to make it very visible, move it a lot), you'll see that the angle between "pivot-rear axle" and "front sprocket-rear axle" changes

- if you are still at the designboard deciding it's length, it will probably effect the position of the pivot point, and thus the angle

the angle is chosen in such a way, that it will always lift the rear under full acceleration. imagine it would pull the rear down and what it would do to your suspension and handling and the squat effect definitly doesn't pushes the front down. it just want's to pull the swingarm closer to the front sprocket, and when it's at the end of the suspension travel, it will lift the front. You can not lift the front wheel if the rear isn't at the end off it's suspension travel

Hansd wrote:1. You assume this is about weight distribution, but my point was this could be about other things, like mass centralisation and making the bike turn better.

I don't assume that. We have all read that Rossi/JB were complaining about the inablity to move weight (the engine specifically) forward due to the front cylinder radiator issue. Moving the engine forward AND moving the rear wheel forward seem to negate each other.

Point taken. On re-reading VR/JB comments I found one where Rossi said they could now load the front better, but they now struggled with traction at the rear. So maybe they can now load the front enough, and have started adjusting the rear to get more grip.Are you sure these comments were made about the same bike at the same time?

Hansd wrote:Point taken. On re-reading VR/JB comments I found one where Rossi said they could now load the front better, but they now struggled with traction at the rear. So maybe they can now load the front enough, and have started adjusting the rear to get more grip.Are you sure these comments were made about the same bike at the same time?

No. And that may be part of the problem. It was Rossi/JB wanting to move the engine forward and Nicky moving the rear wheel forward. I'm not certain that Rossi has exhausted rear axel adjustment to the forward limit. I made that assumption based on same bikes, same initial complaints. I could be wrong and then my questions have no foundation in reality.

- if you keep everything the same, it will raise the rear end of the bike because of the angle of the swing arm. to keep the ride height the same, you will have to make changes to the setup which will result in a different angle for the wing arm and thus a different squat effect.- draw a similar triangle like the bike : front sprocket, swing arm pivot and rear axle. now move the rear axle (and to make it very visible, move it a lot), you'll see that the angle between "pivot-rear axle" and "front sprocket-rear axle" changes

- if you are still at the designboard deciding it's length, it will probably effect the position of the pivot point, and thus the angle

the angle is chosen in such a way, that it will always lift the rear under full acceleration. imagine it would pull the rear down and what it would do to your suspension and handling and the squat effect definitly doesn't pushes the front down. it just want's to pull the swingarm closer to the front sprocket, and when it's at the end of the suspension travel, it will lift the front. You can not lift the front wheel if the rear isn't at the end off it's suspension travel

I have taken the thread too far away from Ducati goings on and into bike set up. Sorry all. But I have a couple questions, so I'll PM you.

JanBros wrote: You can not lift the front wheel if the rear isn't at the end off it's suspension travel

Unless you mean that the rear is topped out, not bottomed, then that is incorrect.

I lift the front at the same time I am running over quite large bumps. How come I can still fell the suspension working in the rear ? Going old school on this, when it was wet, you softened the arse end up so that the bike would throw more weight on the rear during acceleration to give the best grip you could hope for.

The added upside to this was the bike was less prone to wheelie.

..........even if you were using the throttle a bit differently than you would normally do in the dry.

My understanding of it is it's mostly engine power/torque that lifts the front. Rear suspension stiffness and geometery add to it's likelyhood, or not, depending on design.

Which is easier to wheelie............. a full blown sports bike or a tourer(even sports tourer) with a rear end designed to encorporate comfort (plushness/softness) into it's act ?

Last edited by Zaphod on Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

JanBros wrote: You can not lift the front wheel if the rear isn't at the end off it's suspension travel

Unless you mean that the rear is topped out, not bottomed, then that is just incorrectect.

if you read it like this, it might sound like I'm saying the rear shock absorber is fully pressed in, but if you take my full quote, I thought it was pretty obvious that I mean the rear shock is at it's longest - what I believe you call "topped out"

it just want's to pull the swingarm closer to the front sprocket, and when it's at the end of the suspension travel, it will lift the front. You can not lift the front wheel if the rear isn't at the end off it's suspension travel

Yes, the stiffer the the rear, the more wheelie prone the bike will be.

In some ways, the riding I do now has taught me quite alot about setting up suspension compared to what I learnt riding road bikes. With Enduro riding (hare scrambles for the U.S blokes) the type of terrain you cover means that unlike MX, SX or any type of circuit racing your settings are much wider than what you would ideally want them. Sure, the suspension is designed to cope with most of this very well.......but when you transition from sand, into large loose rocks, then into greasy slippery mud and so on it doesn't take too much imagination to see what I'm getting at.

Whilst not the black art it once was, suspension tuning still conjures up mental images of blokes in large dark cloaks hunching over boiling cauldrons to me........

Although road circuit racing doesn't have to deal with the same things as a dirt bike, the adjustments ( or tuning) required are much finer, and probably more exasperating to get right.

Dirt bike racing (enduro in particular) tends to deal in seconds or minutes..........not 100th's and 1000th's of seconds that road racing deals with.

I often think that the suspension guys at road racing events are masochists.

Rider; "it's really good everywhere, except it's loading up a bit too much over the small bumps on entry to turn two.......oh, and in the middle of the exit turn 11 it's maybe a bit stiff on the rebound as it starts to spin up a bit when I get on the gas"

Susp Guy " OK"

he goes and makes adjustments to deal with that.......

Rider; "Ok, now it's good on the entry to two, and gets out of 11 just right..............but it's shit in the middle of four now, and is a bucket changing direction through six and seven"

Vale - "I've told (Filippo) Preziosi (Ducati Corse general manager) what are the things that don't work," Rossi said. "After the first test in Malaysia, someone had some 'marvelous ideas' that turned out to be sh*t. At least I've managed to do 15 consecutive laps. This is our position at the moment, and if everything goes well, we'll be able to do it again in Qatar."

Vale - "I've told (Filippo) Preziosi (Ducati Corse general manager) what are the things that don't work," Rossi said. "After the first test in Malaysia, someone had some 'marvelous ideas' that turned out to be sh*t. At least I've managed to do 15 consecutive laps. This is our position at the moment, and if everything goes well, we'll be able to do it again in Qatar."

That is probably the least optimistic I've ever heard J.B., and one wonders whether he'll be retiring at the end of the season - the reference to Rossi 'dropping off the pipe a bit' suggests that J.B. is feeling greater frustration than he has ever before admitted within the team. Rossi's 'at least I've managed to do 15 consecutive laps' (which I take to mean, 'I've managed to do 15 laps where the thing hasn't tried to spit me off/ headed for the hills somewhere') isn't a magnificent testimony to what he's sitting astride, either.

I don't like to be overly pessimistic myself, but I can't help wondering that if the new owners of Ducati were to negotiate a 'graceful' withdrawal from the season and release Rossi and J.B. from their contracts early, they might both be happy to take the offer? That would perhaps give Rossi the opportunity to develop something for next year that might be more of a 'heroic challenge' than living with comparisons that frankly don't flatter (even if the cognoscenti appreciate the more subtle conditions that make such comparisons less than necessarily fair) - and yes, I'm thinking a full Aprillia factory team effort. I don't think J.B would come along for that ride, though - he really does sound as if he's seen his amuse-by date come up.

Road rash is nature's way of telling you you should have widened your entry

Jb's comments re Rossi were that "Valentino hasn't dropped off the pipe that much but I guess your senses get dulled by constant little failures,"....which I took to mean that everyone, including JB, is just getting tired of trying when you're not getting what you know you need to do the job.

This, the way I read it, ties in with Rossi's comment re Pretzelsonly...........it is still fairly murky for us, but it would appear to be clear to JB and Valentino where the blame lays for the lack of forward progress.

Pretzels.

Despite all of this, I saw some optimisim from JB in that article ( not to imply that he may not pull the pin when the year/contract is up) in the form of "My gut feeling is that we should be able to challenge for the podium this year against Dani Pedrosa (who is Honda teammate of reigning world champion Australian Casey Stoner) and Andrea Dovizioso (the new Yamaha signing,"

His real beef seems to be with Dorna and the FIM.........which I think is quite a fair critique.......

"The people getting MotoGP on television shouldn't be running the rule book," he says in reference to the Spanish-based Dorna sports company.

"As for the FIM, they are meant to represent motorcyclists around the world but we only have one motorcycle Grand Prix in the southern hemisphere." Dorna want sliding and exitment from the bikes....well, perhaps us mere mortals here calling for a ban ( as BSB have done) on electronics would have the desired effect, as well as.....

"Rules that require them to make more power out of a smaller engine give manufacturers a reason to be there."

He does make a fair bit of sense.

Reading the article has, however, reignited my feeling that Pretzels should go...........His apparent unwavering devotion to his preconceived ideas is starting to annoy a lot of people.

If he thought things were going to change/improve......would he have jumped ? Maybe yes......but maybe not. If you're trying your arse off and getting progressively less results, with the knowledge that some day soon this pile of crap is going to catch you out, then.......

Get rid of Pretzels I say. He is the one constant ( as are his idea's) in a list of many variables (riders/crew chiefs, mechanics)......... no "genius" has ever had that many people turn useless the minute they get to work under them.

.......shit,.......Melandri even achieved more (relatively) on that dud of a Kwaka !

Cam D wrote:Vale - "I've told (Filippo) Preziosi (Ducati Corse general manager) what are the things that don't work," Rossi said. "After the first test in Malaysia, someone had some 'marvelous ideas' that turned out to be sh*t. At least I've managed to do 15 consecutive laps. This is our position at the moment, and if everything goes well, we'll be able to do it again in Qatar."

Where did you get that quote from? I didn't hear Rossi say that at Jerez.

Cam D wrote:Vale - "I've told (Filippo) Preziosi (Ducati Corse general manager) what are the things that don't work," Rossi said. "After the first test in Malaysia, someone had some 'marvelous ideas' that turned out to be sh*t. At least I've managed to do 15 consecutive laps. This is our position at the moment, and if everything goes well, we'll be able to do it again in Qatar."

Where did you get that quote from? I didn't hear Rossi say that at Jerez.

This is a very pointed thing to say. Clearly we dont know who he is referring to but everybody closely associated with the Ducati Corse Motogp effort will do and so seems IMHO to be a clear attempt at undermining someone important within Ducati's powerbase. Who though?

I hope the days of Rossi and JB'S tactful silence is over as if not I can see another barren and wasted season for Rossi. Imagine as well if he went off and won on an Aprilla or regularly beat the factory Ducs.

Last edited by ducati1098s on Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This is a very pointed thing to say. Clearly we dont know who he is referring to but everybody closely associated with the Ducati Corse Motogp effort will be and so seems to be to be a clear attempt at undermining someone important at Ducati's powerbase.

OK, I see what happened. That's from the Italian (Autosport wrote the story based on the Gazzetta dello Sport story). I'll listen to it and see if I can figure out if he really said that.

This is a very pointed thing to say. Clearly we dont know who he is referring to but everybody closely associated with the Ducati Corse Motogp effort will be and so seems to be to be a clear attempt at undermining someone important at Ducati's powerbase.

OK, I see what happened. That's from the Italian (Autosport wrote the story based on the Gazzetta dello Sport story). I'll listen to it and see if I can figure out if he really said that.

Just checked the audio, and he said something which almost resembles the Autosport quote ...

Cam D wrote:Vale - "I've told (Filippo) Preziosi (Ducati Corse general manager) what are the things that don't work," Rossi said. "After the first test in Malaysia, someone had some 'marvelous ideas' that turned out to be sh*t. At least I've managed to do 15 consecutive laps. This is our position at the moment, and if everything goes well, we'll be able to do it again in Qatar."

Where did you get that quote from? I didn't hear Rossi say that at Jerez.

Cam D wrote:Vale - "I've told (Filippo) Preziosi (Ducati Corse general manager) what are the things that don't work," Rossi said. "After the first test in Malaysia, someone had some 'marvelous ideas' that turned out to be sh*t. At least I've managed to do 15 consecutive laps. This is our position at the moment, and if everything goes well, we'll be able to do it again in Qatar."

Where did you get that quote from? I didn't hear Rossi say that at Jerez.